Sévigny v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue)
The trial judge permissibly preferred the parties' initial, corroborated and signed statements over their later revised testimony and reasonably concluded that an arm's-length person would not have entered into a contract giving benefits similar to those received by the appellant; accordingly the appeal is dismissed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 344
- Parties
- Appellant: Clément Sévigny; Respondent: Minister of National Revenue
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 October 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Tax Court of Canada Concerning Insurability Under the Employment Insurance Act / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Tax Court of Canada
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Insurability of Employment, Non Arm's Length Employment, Credibility and Findings of Fact, Standard of Appellate Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Clément Sévigny
Appellant
Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Tax Court of Canada Concerning Insurability Under the Employment Insurance Act / Federal Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Tax Court of Canada
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's employment was insurable under paragraphs 5(2)(i) and 5(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly preferred the parties' initial statements over their subsequent revised testimony
- 3 Whether an arm's-length person would have entered into a contract providing benefits similar to those received by the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge permissibly preferred the parties' initial, corroborated and signed statements over their later revised testimony and reasonably concluded that an arm's-length person would not have entered into a contract giving benefits similar to those received by the appellant; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the trial judge's decision stands.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sévigny v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-10-25 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 344 File numbers A-262-04 Decision Content Date: 20051025 Docket: A-262-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 344 CORAM : DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: CLÉMENT SÉVIGNY Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent Hearing held at Québec, Quebec, on October 20, 2005. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 25, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20051025 Docket: A-262-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 344 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: CLÉMENT SÉVIGNY Appellant and MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DÉCARY J. [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a deputy judge of the Tax Court of Canada (2004 TCC 250) concerning the insurability of the appellant's employment within the meaning of paragraphs 5(2)(i) and 5(3)(b) of the Employment Insurance Act. [2] The judge found that the appellant, who is the spouse of the owner of the convenience store where he worked, would not have entered into a similar contract if his relationship with his employer had been at arm's length. [3] Basically, the appellant objects to the judge's having preferred the version given by the appellant and his spouse at their initial meeting with an investigating officer over the revised version that they subsequently gave and later repeated in Court. [4] The judge explained at length the reasons why he chose the initial version over the second, and it is not for this Court to substitute its choice for the informed choice of the judge. I should add that the initial version was given on two separate occasions, two days apart, first by the appellant and then by the employer, in the presence of their accountant, who was not called upon to testify. That version was duly signed, and the responses given by each were remarkably similar, leading to the inescapable conclusion that a person in an arm's length relationship with an employer would never have received benefits the same as, or similar to, those received by the appellant. [5] The appeal should be dismissed with costs. "Robert Décary" J.A. I concur Gilles Létourneau J.A. I concur Marc Noël J.A. Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-262-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: CLÉMENT SÉVIGNY v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: October 20, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A. DATED: October 25, 2005 APPEARANCES: Frédéric Saint-Jean FOR THE APPELLANT Nathalie Goulard FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Frédéric Goulard Sainte-Foy, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT